Search This Blog

Friday, 25 April 2014

Seven members of
Swaziland’s best known pro-democracy party the People’s United Democratic
Movement (PUDEMO) have been arrested and charged under a terrorism act for wearing
t-shirts and berets with the group’s name on them.

They were arrested
outside the Swazi High Court where they were with other members of the public
who gathered to show support for Bheki Makhubu and Thulani Maseko, who are in court on contempt charges
following the publication of magazine articles that were critical of the
kingdom’s judiciary.

PUDEMO is banned
under Swaziland’s controversial Suppression of Terrorism Act (STA) which has
been extensively used against opponents of King Mswati III, who rules Swaziland
as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch.

The Swaziland
Solidarity Network (SSN), another prodemocracy group banned under the STA,
reported that seven PUDEMO members were arrested and charged. It named them as
Bongani Gama; Mlungusi Makhanya
(the group’s Secretary General); Brian Ntshangase (the group’s public relations
officer); Mangaliso Khumalo; Bafana Magongo; Ntobeko Maseko and Size Tsabedze.

Thursday, 24 April 2014

Qalakaliboli
Dlamini, the Swaziland journalist whose articles attacked gays and called
battered women ‘bitches’, has been sacked by his newspaper.

But, he was not
sacked for his articles, even though they caused a storm of protest from
readers.

Instead, he was
dismissed because of comments he made on his Facebook page about the Times Sunday, the newspaper that
employed him.

Qalakaliboli
Dlamini, aged 41, whose real name is Musawenkhosi Dlamini, became notorious
during 2012 for articles he wrote for the newspaper.

Among his targets
were battered women. In December 2012 he wrote that they were ‘bitches’
and said ‘most’ women who were beaten up by men brought it upon
themselves.

After the publication of the article a range of
organisations, among them the Swaziland Action Group Against Abuse (SWAGAA),
Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organizations, Coordinating Assembly for
Non-Governmental Organisations (CANGO), Swaziland Concerned Church Leaders,
Swaziland National Association of Teachers, Swaziland Positive Living and the
Swaziland Agricultural Producers Union (SAPU), called
for an apology.

In May 2012, Dlamini was briefly suspended by the Times Sunday after he wrote
an article attacking homosexuals as ‘satanic’ and ‘evil’. In the article he
said, ‘I hate homosexuality with every fibre of hair or flesh in my body.’

He added, ‘I will continue to stand up against homosexuals
and if need be, I will run a public anti-homosexual campaign.’

His sacking was not the result of readers’ complaints. Times Sunday editor Innocent Maphalala, writing
in his own newspaper, said Dlamini was dismissed because ‘while writing for us, he used Facebook to
disparage management and staff of the Times Group of Newspapers.

‘He also had many
unkind words to say about our other columnists like the respected Musa Hlophe and
the likeable Bundu Teacher.’

He added, ‘We were
alerted to this by Facebook users who wondered what was going on because they
thought we were one big happy family, especially after I defended Qalakaliboli
a year or so ago, when everybody was against him for bashing women and gays in
his articles.’

Dlamini’s sacking took place in January 2014, but has only
now become public. Maphalala said this was because Dlamini had been writing
comments on his Facebook page which were ‘detrimental to the image of the Times
Sunday, in particular, and the Times Group of Newspapers in general.’

He added, ‘I view
his behaviour as unprofessional and have sent email messages, privately warning
him to stop. He has not.’

The research surveyed 34-countries in Africa and asked a
series of questions about what people thought about democracy and how
democratic they thought their own country was.

But, only in Swaziland were researchers were not allowed to
ask a question about whether people rejected ‘one man rule’. In its report
Afrobarometer said this was because ‘a near-absolute monarch resists
democratization’ in the kingdom.

Among the report’s main findings were that in Swaziland 46
percent of people surveyed said ‘democracy is preferable to any other
government.’

Only 35 percent of people were ‘somewhat or very satisfied’
with the way democracy worked in Swaziland.

A total of 22 percent of people said they believed
non-democratic governments can be preferable to democracies.

In Swaziland political parties are banned from taking part
in elections and political parties that campaigned for democracy in the kingdom
have been banned as terrorists. Even so, 70 percent of people strongly
disapproved of one-party rule.

Dissent in Swaziland is often put down by police and state
forces, but 86 percent of people rejected military rule for Swaziland.

Across the continent seven out of 10 Africans prefer
democracy to other political regimes.

The report raised questions about the depth of Africans’ support
for democracy, suggesting that levels of support depend on whether citizens were
experiencing democracy and whether they felt they were benefitting from it.

The report concluded the demand for, or commitment to,
democracy was much lower in countries where democracy is disputed or elections
are not held – such as Algeria, Egypt, Madagascar and Swaziland.

The report was authored by Professor Michael Bratton of Michigan State University
in the United States and Richard Houessou of the Institute for Empirical
Research in Political Economy (IREEP) in Benin.

Thursday, 17 April 2014

King Mswati III’s
right-hand man has told a community they ‘will burn’ if they continue to defy
instructions from the King.

And, the Swaziland King
ordered a ‘complete silence’ from his subjects in the kaLuhleko chiefdom about
his decision to appoint their chief.

The warning was
delivered by Ludzidzini Royal Residence Governor Timothy Velabo Mtetwa, who is
commonly known in Swaziland as the ‘traditional prime minister’. This means he
is the voice of the King and more powerful than Barnabas Dlamini, the man the
King appointed as Swaziland’s figurehead PM.

Mtetwa and a delegation
from the King visited kaLuhleko on Monday (14 April 2014) to issue a dire
warning. The Swazi
Observer, a newspaper in effect
owned by the King, who is sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, reported ‘Bhekwako Dlamini of kaLuhleko has
been mobilising the people to snub meetings called by the newly appointed Chief
Zulwelihle Maseko, who was blessed by Their Majesties last June.’

‘“It has gotten to
the attention of His Majesty the King and the Queen Mother that there is
something irregular happening here and that is why we are here today,” he said
to deafening silence.

‘“There is a bad
habit that has come to the attention of the authorities that there are some
people who still choose to defy the chief and do not recognise a man who has
been appointed by the King. Where have you ever heard of that? This is the
person who has been chosen to take over from Mfanwenkhosi Maseko and I have
been sent by His Majesty to order that there be complete silence in this
place,” said the tough talking Mtetwa.’

The Observer reported Mthethwa warned that
people who did not adhere to the directive issued by the King ‘will burn’.

Swazi chiefs have enormous
power. It is through chieftaincies that King Mswati maintains control of his
people and chiefs do his bidding at a local level. People know not to get on the
wrong side of the chief because their livelihood depends on his goodwill. In
some parts of Swaziland the chiefs are given the power to decide who gets food
that has been donated by international agencies. The chiefs quite literally
have power of life and death in such cases with about a third of the population
of Swaziland receiving food aid each year.

Chiefs can and do
take revenge on their subjects who disobey them. There is a catalogue of cases
in Swaziland. For example, Chief Dambuza Lukhele of Ngobelweni in the
Shiselweni region banned his subjects
from ploughing their fields because some of them defied his order to build
a hut for one of his wives.

Nhlonipho Nkamane
Mkhatswa, chief of Lwandle in Manzini,
the main commercial city in Swaziland, reportedly
stripped a woman of her clothing in the middle of a street in full
view of the public because she was wearing trousers.

In November 2013, the
newly-appointed Chief Ndlovula of Motshane threatened to evict nearly 1,000
of his subjects from grazing land if they did not pay him a E5,000 (US$500)
fine, the equivalent of more than six months income for many.

He said his
subjects had illegally built homes on land put aside for grazing.

Wednesday, 16 April 2014

Police and court officials in Swaziland have been caught on
the hop by the support given to the magazine editor and human rights lawyer
presently in jail awaiting trial on charges arising from criticisms they made
of the judiciary in the kingdom.

At the latest hearing in the Swazi High Court, relatives and
supporters of Nation magazine editor
Bheki Makhubu and lawyer Thulani Maseko were denied entry into the courtroom.

On Monday (14 April 2014), at the latest hearing, court
authorities moved the session to the smallest court in the building, even
though larger ones were available. This meant that many people who wanted to
attend the hearing could not.

Police also reportedly blocked the entrance to the High
Court to prevent supporters entering the building. The incident was widely
reported with words and pictures on social media as it was happening.

The extent of the support in court for the two accused men
is unprecedented in Swaziland, where King Mswati III rules as sub-Saharan
Africa’s last absolute monarch and free speech and freedom of assembly are
severely restricted.

Two days earlier police had illegally
abducted prodemocracy leaders to prevent them addressing a meeting calling
for freedom in Swaziland. They were also expected to have spoken in support of
Makhubu and Maseko.

Social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter have been
extensively used to inform people about the happenings in court. Broadcast
media in Swaziland is state-controlled and has ignored the proceedings.

Of the
two newspaper groups in the kingdom, one is in effect owned by King Mswati and
the other has restricted its coverage. Innocent Maphalala,editor of the independent Times Sunday, went so far as to
tell his readers in print that he feared being sent to jail if he wrote
anything that was deemed unacceptable by the authorities about the case.

The People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO), the best
known of the pro-democracy groups in Swaziland, said the police action to deny
entry to the court was ‘a brazen disregard for the rights of relatives and
friends’ of the two accused men.

In a statement it said police and court authorities were
aware of the huge interest in the case and the large number of people that
previously attended, and as ‘an obvious act of sabotage’, chose to use the
smaller court. It added that plain-clothed policemen were also placed in the
court to take up as many available seats as possible.

Makhubu and Maseko are expected to appear in court again on
22 April 2014 for the start of their trial.

Tibiyo made E218
million from its operations in a single year, according to financial results just published.

Although the King
is said to hold the assets for the nation, he in facts uses a substantial
amount of the money to finance his own lavish lifestyle. Swaziland has a
population of 1.3 million, people and seven in ten of them live in abject
poverty with incomes less than US$2 a day.

Meanwhile, King
Mswati, who rules Swaziland as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, has
13 palaces, a private jet, fleets of BMW and Mercedes cars and at least one
Rolls Royce.

The money is also
said to finance lavish lifestyles for his family. His 13 wives regularly enjoy luxury
holidays in some of the world’s most glamorous tourist attractions.

Financial results
published in the Times Sunday,an
independent newspaper in Swaziland, revealed Tibiyo made E218.1 million in the
year ended March 2012. According to the company’s latest financial report,
revenue increased by at least 46.6 per cent during that period.

Profits recorded in 2012 amounted to E116 million.

The Times reported at the end of 2012,
Tibiyo had assets worth E1.39 billion.

Themba Dlamini,
Managing Director (MD) of the company, said Tibiyo’s cash cow was largely the
sugar cane industry. It has a stake in Ubombo Sugar (40 per cent stake), Royal
Swaziland Sugar Corporation (50 per cent shares) and Inyoni Yami Swaziland
Irrigation Scheme (IYSIS) among others.

In a report in 2013, the Institute
for Security Studies in South Africa called Tibiyo a ‘closed, largely
secretive, mega entity that accumulates wealth for the monarchy. Through it,
patronage and nepotism are believed to be rewarded.’

Swazi people are
not allowed to criticise King Mswati, but in 2013, the Communist Party of
Swaziland (CPS) launched a Red October Campaign
to cut all his financing. The CPS said in addition to Tibiyo TakaNgwane, the
King he received income from Tisuka Taka
Ngwane, which is a residential and commercial property developer.

‘Both funds account for some 50 percent of the Swazi economy,’ CPS said.

Kenneth Kunene, CPS General Secretary, said, ‘That poverty and disease are such blights
on the lives of the Swazi people is directly and incontrovertibly linked to
Mswati’s sources of income.

‘We think it
is high time that everything held in trust for the Swazi nation is now handed
over to the people. Mswati has done a bad job at holding it in trust for us.
The country needs its wealth back, and the CPS is calling on people to demand
what is theirs.’

The Red
October Campaign also demanded that the R400 million given to
the royal family each year from the state budget be immediately cancelled.

‘Mswati and
his family are no different than an organized crime syndicate,’ said Kunene.
‘And the way you deal with organized crime is to cut off its access to ready
cash. That way it will shrivel up and die. And that’s what we want to see
happen with the Mswati regime.’

Sunday, 13 April 2014

Police in Swaziland
illegally abducted prodemocracy leaders on Saturday (12 April 2014), drove them
up to 30 kilometres away, and dumped them to prevent them taking part in a meeting
calling for freedom in the kingdom.

Police staged
roadblocks on all major roads leading to Swaziland’s main commercial city, Manzini,
where protests were to be held.

Police also
physically blocked halls to prevent meetings taking place. Earlier in the day police had announced on
state radio that meetings would not be allowed to take place.

The intended protests
were part of the annual 12 April commemorations in Swaziland. On 12 April 1973 King
Sobhuza II issued a Royal proclamation dissolving parliament, banning political
parties and placing all power in the kingdom in the hands of the monarchy. This
was because he disapproved of some of the MPs elected to parliament by his
subjects.

Swazi media
reported that trade union leaders including Vincent Ncongwane, the
Secretary General of Trade Union Congress of Swaziland (TUCOSWA); Quinton
Dlamini, President of National Public Service and Allied Workers Union
(NAPSAWU) and Thandokwazi Dludlu, Secretary General of the Public and Private
Sector Transport Union (PPSTWU) were separately arrested by police and taken to
a series of police stations for questioning. They were denied
access to lawyers.

The Times
Sunday, an independent newspaper in Swaziland, reported, they were separately
taken to up to 30 km away from the planned meeting place and then dumped.

The leaders were
among a number of trade unionists reportedly picked up by police for
questioning.

Meanwhile, more than 50 workers from textile firms were blocked from
a meeting organised by TUCOSWA at a school in Manzini. Police made sure the
workers could not meet elsewhere and blocked the gates to Caritas, a popular venue
for prodemocracy meetings, in Manzini, Local media also reported armed police
were at the Mandlenkhosi Ecumenical House to prevent a meeting taking place
there.

Thursday, 10 April 2014

Swaziland’s justice system was in a state of confusion on Thursday
(10 April 2014) when magazine editor Bheki Makhubu and human rights lawyer Thulani
Maseko were remanded in custody until 14 April 2014, despite having been
released by the High Court only last Sunday (5 April 2014) after spending
20 days in jail.

The two men have been in and out of court over the past
three weeks and it is thought they will be there again on Friday (11 April
2014) for a pre-trial conference.

Meanwhile, an appeal lodged with the Supreme Court by the
Attorney-General’s Office against the release of the two men seems to have been
overlooked. It was to be heard in May.

At the centre of the case are contempt of court charges that
have been laid against Makhubu and Maseko after they wrote articles in the Nation magazine in Swaziland criticising
the Swazi Chief Justice Michael Ramodibedi. The two men had spent 20 days in
jail after Ramodibedi himself issued an arrest warrant and, in a closed court,
without lawyers present, had sent them to jail to await trial.

On Sunday (5 April 2014) High Court Judge Mumcy Dlamini ruled they
should not have been jailed.

Makhubu and Maseko were freed, but later it transpired that
no liberation warrants had been served and the pair might not have been legally
released.

Then on Wednesday the two men sent their lawyers to the High
Court in front of Judge Mpendulo Simelane in an attempt to get him to stand
down from hearing the contempt case against them. This was because Simelane was
one of the judge’s criticised in the articles.

Judge Simelane then
issued warrants for the re-arrest of Makhubu and Maseko because they had
not appeared in his court. This was even though they had been released from
jail and an appeal against this had yet to be heard. Their lawyers argued this meant
there was no compulsion for the men to appear.

Later in the day they were apprehended and jailed.

On Thursday they appeared in a courtroom packed with
supporters. After legal arguments that the arrest warrants for the two men were
not legal, because Judge Simelane acted beyond his powers, Judge Simelane
himself ruled the warrants were lawful and remanded the two men to jail.

There is now also confusion about the status of the Supreme
Court appeal. It appears that High Court Judge Simelane has pre-empted that
appeal and in effect decided himself that High Court Judge Dlamini was wrong in
her judgment last Sunday.

Judge Simelane has been subjected to some criticism since
his appointment by Chief Justice Ramodibedi to the High Court in February 2014.
The Sunday Observer, a newspaper in
Swaziland in effect owned by King Mswati III, who rules Swaziland as
sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, said Simelane
lacked the necessary experience.

On Thursday the Law Society of Swaziland said it had tried
to register an application challenging the appointment of Simelane as a judge
of the High Court, but the Registrar of the High Court was refusing to accept
it due to pressure from Ramodibedi.

Wednesday, 9 April 2014

Warrants were issued for the re-arrest of the editor of the Nation magazine Bheki Makhubu and human
rights lawyer Thulani
Maseko in Swaziland on Wednesday (9 April 2014).

It happened when they attended the High Court to attempt to
have Judge Mpendulo Simelane stand down from hearing a case against them. Both
men are charged with contempt of court after they wrote articles in the Nation magazine critical of the
Swaziland Chief Justice Michael Ramodibedi.

Instead, Judge Simelane issued warrants for their arrests.

Makhubu and Maseko had previously been remanded to jail by Ramodibedi,
but on Sunday after 20 days they were released by the High Court and had been
free since then.

Judge Simelane said Wednesday no liberation warrants had
been issued after the High Court judgement on Sunday. This meant that the men
had not been lawfully released.

At the centre of the case is Ramodibedi, who on 17 March
issued warrants for the arrest of Makhubu and Maseko and then sent them to jail on remand. He did this in
closed court without lawyers present.

In her
written judgement, Dlamini said that Ramodibedi had
sent the men to jail without hearing arguments or submissions why they should
not be.

She added that the law in Swaziland stated that it
was a magistrate’s job to issue arrest warrants.

She said the affidavits used to support the warrant
of arrest were ‘incompetent in law’ because they were raised by the Chief
Justice’s clerk, who was representing the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice
claimed to be injured by the contents of the articles the two accused men
wrote.

Judge Dlamini said, ‘A person attesting an affidavit must becompletely objective and have no interest of any kind
in the contents or input of thataffidavit.’

She went on to say that the hearing should not have been heard in
the Chief Justice’s chambers.

‘A matter of such magnitude viz.
incarceration of persons ought tohave been deliberated
fully in an open court.’

The Swazi public have been banned from
visiting the new King Mswati III Airport in Swaziland in case they wear out
floor tiles in the passenger lounge.

The no-visitors directive has been issued by
the Swaziland Civil Aviation Authority (SWACAA). The airport, formerly known as
Sikhuphe, was opened in March 2014, but no commercial flights have used it and
none are planned.

The cost so far of the airport is E3 billion
(US$300 million), much of the money came from the Swazi taxpayer.

King Mswati III, who rules Swaziland as
sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, issued a directive that the airport
should remain in sublime condition.

The Times Sunday, an independent newspaper in Swaziland and a
critic of the building of the airport, reported SWACAA Director Solomon Dube
saying the airport was not a museum or a mall. He also said visitors were
banned for ‘security reasons’.

The newspaper reported him saying, ‘Everyone should cool down and stay
away from the airport for now. This arrangement goes in line with the call from
His Majesty the King, who said it should be kept in sublime condition.’

Dube said letting people into the facility could cause damage to some
parts of the infrastructure, such as the ceramic tiles on the floor for the
building.

‘Ceramic tiles are expensive and their disproportionate use could damage
them and it would cost us a lot of money to replace them. We also do not want
the structure to age before passengers and airlines even use it,’ he
said.

The airport is under 24-hour guard by the Royal Swaziland Police who
worked with private security firms to ensure that anxious visitors who were
excited by the structure were kept out of the facility, the Times reported.

The airport, dubbed King Mswati’s ‘vanity project,’ needs about 400,000
passengers a year to break even.

Tuesday, 8 April 2014

There was widespread confusion in Swaziland on Tuesday (8
April 2014) regarding the status of Nation
magazine editor Bheki Makhubu and human rights lawyer Thulani Maseko.

Both men were released
from jail by the Swazi High Court on Sunday after spending 20 days on
remand awaiting trial on contempt of court charges, following the publication of
articles critical of Chief Justice Michael Ramodibedi.

But, reports were circulating in Swaziland that new arrest
warrants had been issued against the two men, but that police officers were
reluctant to execute them without the express command of the Swazi Police
Commissioner Isaac Magagula.

At the centre of the case is Chief Justice Ramodibedi, who on
17 March issued warrants for the arrest of Makhubu and Maseko and then sent them to jail on remand. He did this in
closed court without lawyers present.

In her
written judgement, Dlamini said that CJ Ramodibedi had
sent the men to jail without hearing arguments or submissions why they should
not be.

She added that the law in Swaziland stated that it
was a magistrate’s job to issue arrest warrants.

She said the affidavits used to support the warrant
of arrest were ‘incompetent in law’ because they were raised by the Chief
Justice’s clerk, who was representing the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice claimed
to be injured by the contents of the articles the two accused men wrote.

Judge Dlamini said, ‘A person attesting an affidavit must becompletely objective and have no interest of any kind
in the contents or input of thataffidavit.’

She went on to say that the hearing should not have been heard in
the Chief Justice’s chambers.

‘A matter of such magnitude viz.
incarceration of persons ought tohave been deliberated
fully in an open court.’

Meanwhile,
the Swazi Observer newspaper has
reported that the Chief Justice is angry that Makhubu and Maseko were freed
from jail after the High Court ruling. It reported that Judge Dlamini had not
specifically stated the two men should be freed and no release warrant had been
signed.

It reported
that on Monday Ramodibedi summoned to his chambers Superintendent Joseph Mahlindza, the Officer-in Charge at Sidwashini Correctional
Services, where the two had been jailed, together with two officers. They had
to answer to him why the two prisoners had been released without a liberation
warrant.

Under normal
circumstances, the liberation warrant is signed by the Registrar of the High
Court, the Observer reported.

Either Swaziland’s Chief Justice Michael Ramodibedi does not
understand the law in the kingdom, or he chooses not to apply it.

That has to be the main conclusion after a High Court
judgement that freed Nation magazine
editor, Bheki Makhubu and human rights lawyer Thulani Maseko from jail on Sunday (6 April
2014).

The two men had been sent
to jail on remand to await trial on contempt of court charges. This
followed publication
of articles in the Nation
that were critical of CJ Ramodibedi.

Makhubu and Maseko went to the Swazi High Court to demand
their release because they had illegally been arrested and sent to jail. They
argued that CJ Ramodibedi had unlawfully issued a summons for their arrest and
then heard the case behind closed doors in chambers, without lawyers present.
They argued that he had no power to send them to jail and that no law officer
had requested they be imprisoned.

In her
written judgement, Dlamini said that CJ Ramodibedi had
sent the men to jail without hearing arguments or submissions why they should
not be.

She added that the law in Swaziland stated that it
was a magistrate’s job to issue arrest warrants.

She said the affidavits used to support the warrant
of arrest were ‘incompetent in law’ because they were raised by the Chief
Justice’s clerk, who was representing the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice claimed
to be injured by the contents of the articles the two accused men wrote.

Judge Dlamini said, ‘A person attesting an affidavit must becompletely objective and have no interest of any kind
in the contents or input of thataffidavit.’

She went on to say that the hearing should not have been heard in
the Chief Justice’s chambers.

‘A matter of such magnitude viz.
incarceration of persons ought tohave been deliberated
fully in an open court.’

Dlamini added that she did not think Chief Justice Ramodibedi
would have
issued the arrest warrant and acted the way he did if he had known these
things.

Which begs these questions: does the Chief Justice of Swaziland
not know basic law, or is it that he knows the law, but chooses not to apply it
to his critics?

More than
1,000 people are in jail in Swaziland because they are too poor to pay fines.
That is nearly three in ten of the entire prison population.

In Swaziland
offenders are often given the option of jail time or paying a fine. There are
people in jail because they could not pay fines for a range of matters,
including traffic offences, theft by false pretences, malicious injury to
property and fraud.

Figures
revealed recently show that in Swaziland, where seven in ten people live in
abject poverty with incomes less than US$2 per day, 1,053 of 3,615 inmates in
Swazi jails were there because they did not have the money to pay the fine
option. This is 29.1 percent of the entire prison population.

Correctional
Services Commissioner Isaiah Ntshangase said the numbers in prison because they
could not pay fines was growing. He wants offenders to be given the option of
paying fines in instalments, rather than going to jail.

‘The fact that the courts gave them the option of a fine means that they
were not a threat to peace and security. Creating payment terms for those who
fail to pay lump sum fines won’t harm anyone,’ the Sunday Observer newspaper
in Swaziland reported Ntshangase saying.

He added, ‘Offenders who committed minor offences and qualified for fine
but failed to pay should be given a further option of paying such fines in
instalments.’

He said often offenders were required to pay the fine immediately of go
to jail. They were not given time to raise the money.

‘Once an offender is convicted, his bargain power dwindles. This has
caused many to rot behind bars yet they could have been released if they paid
the fines,’ he said.

Ntshangase said keeping people out of prison would stop them being
exposed to hardened criminals.

Friday, 4 April 2014

The European Union Ambassador to Swaziland Nicole Bellomo
and the US Ambassador to Swaziland Makila James both visited the High Court on
Friday (4 April 2014) in solidarity with the magazine editor Bheki Makhubu and
human rights lawyer Thulani Maseko who have been jailed on remand after writing
articles critical of Chief Justice Michael Ramodibedi and the Swazi judiciary.

The unprecedented show of solidarity was the latest turn
of events in a saga that started on 17 March 2014 when both men were arrested
and charged with contempt of court. Makhubu and Maseko were remanded in custody
by CJ Ramodibedi, the man who was on the receiving end the writers’ criticism
in articles published in the Nation,
a monthly comment magazine in Swaziland.

The decision to jail the two men took place behind closed
doors and the men’s lawyers were not present.

Swaziland is ruled by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s
last absolute monarch. The King appoints the government and top judges and
freedom of speech is severely restricted in his kingdom.

On Wednesday (2 April 2014) the Judicial Services
Commission, which is chaired by CJ Ramodibedi and consists of people handpicked
by King Mswati, issued
a public warning against commenting about the case. Independent observers
have interpreted this as a threat to critics of the regime that they too will
be jailed.

US Ambassador James in an impromptu
media conference at the High Court said the United States was concerned about their arrest
because Maseko and Makhubu were expressing their opinions. ‘We are here in
solidarity and to give moral support,’ she said.

Hundreds of supports turned up at the High Court on
Friday as Maseko and Makhubu appeared in court in leg-irons for the third time
in a week. The men were trying to get the court to overturn CJ Ramodibedi’s
jailing order.

Social media in Swaziland are beating mainstream media to
the punch in the coverage of the arrest
and jailing of a magazine editor and a human rights lawyer.

Bheki Makhubu, editor of the Nation magazine and Thulani Maseko were arrested on 17 March 2014
and charged
with contempt of court for writing articles in the magazine critical of the
Swazi judiciary and Chief Justice Michael Ramodibedi in particular.

Posts on social media, especially Facebook and Twitter, told
the world of the arrests almost as they happened and posters have been
following the case every step of the way as the two accused appear in court,
seemingly day after day.

The posts alerted
human rights organisations in Swaziland and across the world to the plight
of the two men. Within hours condemnations of Swaziland, which is ruled by King
Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, were transmitted across
the world. Amnesty
International immediately named Makhubu and Maseko ‘prisoners of
conscience’.

The articles, originally published in the Nation, which has a tiny circulation in
Swaziland, were posted on the Internet ensuring that many more people had the
chance to read them than would have been the case.

Mainstream media outside of Swaziland quickly followed up
on the stories and now the case of Makhubu and Maseko is international news.

Within Swaziland, the Media Institute of Southern Africa
(MISA) reported that state broadcast media, which are almost every radio and
television station in the kingdom, have ignored the case.

MISA
reported, ‘It must be said that the broadcast media in Swaziland is more
censored than the print media and operates under a greater internalised fear of
the authorities. The government has in place Public Service Announcement Guidelinesfor the state-controlled TV and radio,
which among many other measures that restrict free speech, requires people to
get approval from their local chief before issuing a statement.’

There are only two newspaper groups in Swaziland, the Swazi Observer, described by MISA in its
annual report on press freedom in Swaziland as ‘propaganda’ for the Swazi Royal
Family and the independent Times of
Swaziland. Both have given extensive coverage to the trail of the two
accused, but neither have given their readers details of what they have
supposed to have done, beyond reporting they are on contempt of court charges.

The newspapers live in fear of reprisals from the state
if they overstep the mark and criticise the judiciary, who are handpicked by
King Mswati.

The Times Sunday
refused to publish a comment article written by its regular columnist Musa
Hlophe, himself a human rights activist, for fear of retribution. The
unpublished article was subsequently published
on the Swazi Media Commentary blogsite and shared extensively on Facebook.
The Mail and Guardian newspaper in
South Africa later
published it on its own website.

Social media sites were also the first to report the news
that the US Ambassador to Swaziland Makila James had attended the Swazi High
Court to offer her support to the two accused. The US Embassy had previously roundly
criticised the Swazi authorities for the arrests. Social media reported
James saying that the court case would have an implication in an investigation
the US is undertaking on human rights in Swaziland. If improvements are not
made by 15 May 2014, Swaziland risks losing its preferred trading status with
the US under
the AGOA agreement. This could risk 20,000 jobs in the textile industry in
Swaziland.

Social media is fast becoming an essential vehicle for
finding out the truth about what is going on in Swaziland. More and more
ordinary people as well as established democracy advocates are taking to the
Internet to get the message out.

It probably will not stop with the Makhubu and Maseko
case. On 12 April, Swazi activists will mark the anniversary of the 1973 Royal
Proclamation that turned Swaziland from a parliamentary democracy to an
autocratic kingdom ruled by decree. We can expect to get a more complete
picture of the anti-government and anti-monarchy activities on that day from
social media than ever we can from Swaziland’s mainstream media.

Thursday, 3 April 2014

Swaziland’s Judicial
Service Commission (JSC) had no power to warn the kingdom’s media against
criticising judges.

The constitutional role of the JSC is to oversee judges, not
to involve itself in the conduct of the media or members of the public.

The JSC
commented on the ongoing case of Bheki Makhubu, the editor of the Nation magazine and Thulani
Maseko,
a human rights lawyer. Both men have been in
jail on remand since 17 March 2014 awaiting trial on contempt of court charges.
These arise from articles they wrote in the Nation
criticising the Swazi judiciary and in particular the Chief Justice Michael Ramodibedi.

The JSC in a statement to media warned organisations and members of the public that it was
wrong for anyone to comment on the pending contempt of court proceedings.

The JSC is chaired by the CJ Ramodibedi, who
is the man at the centre of the criticisms published by the Nation.

The JSC has overstepped its
powers by making the statement. The JSC is set up under the Swaziland Constitution,
which states that its functions are to advise the King on the appointment, discipline and
removal of theDirector of Public Prosecutions and other public
officers.

It is also required to review and make recommendationson the terms and conditions of
service of Judges andpersons holding the judicial offices.

The JSC also functions as a complaints bureau and receives and process recommendations and complaints
concerning thejudiciary.

It has other functions, including advising the government onimproving the administration of justice generallyandappointing
people to legal positions.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say it has a role to
make public statements about judicial matters.

Nobody who observes Swaziland will be surprised that the JSC
has over-reached its powers. It was created by King Mswati III, who rules
Swaziland as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch. The chair of the JSC
is the Chief Justice, who is appointed by the King. There are five other
members of the commission: four are directly appointed by the King, and the
other has to be Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, himself chosen by the
King.

The judiciary in Swaziland is not independent since all judicial
officers are appointed by the King and they owe their allegiance to him.
Meanwhile, the Swaziland Constitution puts the King and the Queen Mother beyond
the reach of the law.